On a certification of a question of California law by the Ninth Circuit (Hayes v. County of San Diego, 658 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2011)), in police shooting case also implicating state negligence law, Fourth Amendment reasonableness is not the same as state negligence law. Hayes v. County of San Diego, 57 Cal. 4th 622, 160 Cal. Rptr. 3d 684, 305 P.3d 252 (2013):

Continue reading →

Defendant was in a high crime and gang infested area, and the police encountered him. He was “polite and courteous” and doing nothing wrong. The officers noticed a bulge at his waistband, and they asked if he was armed. He admitted he was, and they told him to put his hands on his head, and he did. They relieved him of a gun in a holster. It turned out he was a felon. The search was reasonable under an Arizona statute that allowed officers to neutralize weapons for their own safety. State v. Serna, 666 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 17, 307 P.3d 82 (App. 2013):

Continue reading →

SJ Mercury News: Quoted: Scalia, privacy and ‘blah blah blah’ by Levi Sumagaysay:

Continue reading →

HuPo: Family Of Jose Guerena, Former Marine Killed By SWAT Team, To Receive $3.4 Million by Radley Balko:

Continue reading →

Politico: Antonin Scalia expects NSA wiretaps to end up in court by AP:

Continue reading →

Every case is fact dependent, and what is a reasonable length of time for a highway detention on the totality cannot usefully be determined by simple comparison to other cases. McCree v. State, 2013 Md. App. LEXIS 128 (September 24, 2013):

Continue reading →

Latent fingerprints and DNA swabs are properly subject to seizure under a search warrant. United States v. Jimenez, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136371 (D. Kan. September 24, 2013):

Continue reading →

State constitution’s search and seizure provision permits warrant applications and warrants by telephone. State v. Boyse, 2013-NMSC-024, 303 P.3d 830 (2013):

Continue reading →

HuPo: As LAPD Campaigns For Body Cameras, Privacy Questions Emerge by Anna Almendrala:

Continue reading →

A child pornography investigation led officers to a house with the IP address, but the search came up empty. There was a wireless router there, so the police went to neighbor’s houses to do a knock-and-talk for child porn. One of the neighbors admitted that she and her husband used the wireless. They saw him driving nearby and stopped him, knowing there was a warrant for his arrest for something else. He consented to a search of the computer which was in his truck. United States v. Harper, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71729 (W.D. Ark. April 4, 2013).*

Defendant was not entitled to withdraw her plea for ineffective assistance of counsel for defense counsel not filing a motion to suppress. First, it was in her interest for a better plea deal to not pursue a motion to suppress and she agreed to it. Second, the motion would fail on the merits. State v. Dorado, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 419 (May 17, 2013).*

Defendant’s stop was lawful and not unreasonably extended. He had no DL on him, and the fact the officer was really investigating drugs was not material because it was otherwise reasonable. State v. Hughes-Mabry, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 420 (May 16, 2013).*

Trial court’s finding of consent was supported by the evidence. Tucker v. State, 405 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2013)* (dissenting opinion filed May 29).

Defendant was stopped for not having a motorcycle held down in the back of a pickup truck. Another officer believed defendant was dealing in stolen motorcycles. He consented to a search of his place for stolen motorcycles before he was placed in handcuffs and the back of a police car for safekeeping. The officers testified they always handcuff somebody going into the back of a police car. The consent was before the illegal detention. Marsh v. State, 405 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2013).*

White powder on defendant’s nostrils and slurred speech was reasonable suspicion. People v Boler, 2013 NY Slip Op 3126, 106 A.D.3d 1119, 964 N.Y.S.2d 688 (3d Dept. 2013).*

Peninsula Daily News & AP: Settlement requires Border Patrol to share traffic stop records with critics:

Continue reading →

Politico: NSA chief Gen. Keith Alexander slams ‘sensationalized’ reporting by Tony Romm:

Continue reading →

WaPo: Sen. Patrick Leahy calls for end to NSA bulk phone records program by Ellen Nakashima:

Continue reading →

2255 petitioner’s co-defendant prevailed on a motion to suppress a search, and petitioner’s trial counsel didn’t file one because it was apparent there wasn’t standing. Based on the petitioner’s statements to counsel, it was reasonable to conclude that there was no standing, and it was a reasonable trial strategy to distance himself from the premises at trial. Nance v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135300 (W.D. Tenn. September 23, 2013):

Continue reading →

The third-party doctrine makes pharmacy records open to process less than a search warrant. The expectation of privacy, while reasonable, is not absolute. State v. Wiedeman, 286 Neb. 193, 835 N.W.2d 698 (2013) [See Chapter 5 of the Fifth Edition of this Treatise due out in October for a criticism of the third-party doctrine and informational privacy.]:

Continue reading →

Defendant’s car was stopped on a vague BOLO (“white sedan”) for drugs, and it was searched when stopped. After the search, the officers asked for consent. No legal basis for the stop and search being shown by the record, the motion to suppress should have been granted. Batchelor v. State, 108 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).*

A “routine check” of a probationer’s house isn’t proper under Louisiana law–reasonable suspicion is required. State v. Jones, 119 So. 3d 9 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013).*

A traffic detainee is not entitled to a Miranda warning. Meriwether v. State, 984 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. App. 2013).*

The officers were acting on the complaint of an alderman, and they had no probable cause that an offense occurred when they barged into defendant’s home with a person in tow who stayed there some. They didn’t ask for consent, and they were wearing masks and no markings on their clothing. The entry was without consent or probable cause, and is suppressed. At best, they were acting on some hunch, and they don’t even attempt to support the entry on appeal except by consent, which was rejected by the trial court. People v. Dawn, 2013 IL App (2d) 120025, 992 N.E.2d 1277 (2013):

Continue reading →

The Fifth Circuit (2-1) finds historical cell site location data a mere business record not protected by the Fourth Amendment. [Note the NJ Supreme Court disagreed 12 days earlier.] In Re: Application of the United States of America for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600, 58 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 1292 (5th Cir. 2013) [note: some news article links at end]:

Continue reading →

The appellants in this deportation proceeding were non-citizens here allegedly illegally, and DHS made an early morning warrantless raid of their house in Riverhead, NY. They made a prima facie case of an egregious Fourth Amendment violation enough to invoke the exclusionary rule in a deportation case, and the government elected not to counter it, apparently thinking it didn’t matter. Remanded to the BIA for further proceedings. Cotzojay v. Holder, 725 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2013) [Admit it: how often has the non-citizen prevailed in these things? Haven’t seen one before because courts always find them “not egregious enough.”]:

Continue reading →